Moral Conundrums

[IhateClowns]

I like answering everyone's questions, but I thought I might turn it around a bit. Every few days or so I will ask a new scenario or question and just see what people's thoughts are on them. Unlike the Dear Clowns thread I think this one should be a bit more real. A bit more of a "Thoughts that make you go hmmmmm" type of thread. We have some VERY opinionated people on here and maybe this will spark some good discussion and debate.

The only rule is don't shit on someone else for their thoughts or opinions on the question. Everyone is different. Everyone is entitled to their own thoughts and opinions.

I will ask a new question when I feel the old one has played out. Hopefully this thread doesn't go down in flames but we will see.


#1 If you were put in a position to kill one person in order to save the lives of one hundred other people, could you kill?



#2 (Page 4)Developers want to buy your home and demolish it in order to build a research center in which animal experiments will be conducted. They offer you double the market value, would you sell?


#3 (Page 6) You have the repsponsibility to fill a position within your company. A friend has applied for the position and is qualified for the job. Another applicant has applied and is a lot more qualified with many more years of experience doing the job you need filled. Both go through the processes and in the end you have to make the tough decision. Do you go with your friend who is much less qualified or the applicant that is more qualified and requires a lot less training to get started?


#4 (Page 6) You discover you will die in exactly five years time but if you win a coin toss you can live for another thirty years. If you lose you will die in one months time. Would you take the gamble?


#5 (Page 7)You are shopping and notice a woman stuffing a pair of stockings into her purse. Do you report her? Why or why not?


#6. (Page 7) You find out your partner is having an affair. Would you be any more or less upset if you found out they were having an affair with someone of the same sex?


#7 (Page 7) Which would you prefer, to be 100% emotionally content or 100% financially content for the rest of your life? Why?


#8 (Page 8) Imagine you are placed in a room with Adolf Hitler when he is only 3 years old. You have a gun, know exactly what he does during WWII and will not be charged in any way if you choose to kill him, but at the time he is just an innocent baby, could you pull the trigger?

#9 (Page 9) How much money, if indeed there is a price, would you need to be paid to appear in a pornographic movie? The movie is likely to be viewed by millions of people.


#10 (Page 9) A 22 year old woman from San Diego who chose the nickname Natalie Dylan for herself, announced today on the Howard Stern show that she is auctioning her virginity to the highest bidder - in oder to pay for college. The actual auction will be held on bunnyranch.com, where the woman's sister already works as ... bunny

What do you think of it and could you ever envision yourself doing the same?


#11 (Page 9) You are a psychiatrist and your patient has just confided to you that he intends to kill a woman. You're inclined to dismiss the threat as idle, but you aren't sure. Should you report the threat to the police and the woman or should you remain silent as the principle of confidentiality between psychiatrist and patient demands? Should there be a law that compels you to report such threats?


#12 (Page 9) Your worst enemy is being sentenced to death and you are the only person who can clear their name. Do you come forward to save their life, or do you let them die because of all the pain and misery they caused you?


#13 (Page 9) If you were at the scene of an accident while it was taking place and there were three people that you knew would die, but you had to power to save one who would you save?

Here are the people: A pregnant woman. Your mother. Your one true love. Why them over the others?


#14. (page 10) Your best friend confides in you that he committed a crime the other day. After telling you he makes you promise not to tell anyone else. While watching the news a few days later, you see the police have arrested an innocent man for the crime your friend confessed to yo he did. After pleading with him to turn himself in he defiantly says no and reminds you of the promise you made. What do you do? When is it ok to break a promise?

#15. (Page 11) If you loved someone with all your heart and they hated everything about you, would you shorten their life by 10 years if it meant they would love you in return?


#16. (Page 11) You are an inmate in a concentration camp. A sadistic guard is about to hang your son who tried to escape and wants you to pull the chair from underneath him. He says that if you don’t he will not only kill your son but some other innocent inmate as well. You don’t have any doubt that he means what he says. What should you do?



#17 (Page 12)A huge comet strikes the Earth and wipes out 90% of life and all infrastructure. Would you want to continue to live in such a decimated world or would you be tempted to take your own life?

#18 (page 12) Are people obligated to be good Samaritans? Why or why not?

#19. (page 13) A madman who has threatened to explode several bombs in crowded areas has been apprehended. Unfortunately, he has already planted the bombs and they are scheduled to go off in a short time. It is possible that hundreds of people may die. The authorities cannot make him divulge the location of the bombs by conventional methods. He refuses to say anything and requests a lawyer to protect his fifth amendment right against self-incrimination. In exasperation, some high level official suggests torture. This would be illegal, of course, but the official thinks that it is nevertheless the right thing to do in this desperate situation. Do you agree? If you do, would it also be morally justifiable to torture the mad bomber’s innocent wife if that is the only way to make him talk? Why?



#20 (Page 13) Let's say you could change genders for one week. What 3 things would you like to experience being a member of the opposite sex?

 

[Roxanne_Smith69]

I like answering everyone's questions, but I thought I might turn it around a bit. Every few days or so I will ask a new scenario or question and just see what people's thoughts are on them. Unlike the Dear Clowns thread I think this one should be a bit more real. A bit more of a "Thoughts that make you go hmmmmm" type of thread. We have some VERY opinionated people on here and maybe this will spark some good discussion and debate.

The only rule is don't shit on someone else for their thoughts or opinions on the question. Everyone is different. Everyone is entitled to their own thoughts and opinions.

I will ask a new question when I feel the old one has played out. Hopefully this thread doesn't go down in flames but we will see.


If you were put in a position to kill one person in order to save the lives of one hundred other people, could you kill?

Yes, especially if my child was one of that hundred. It would haunt me but I would do it.

Cool thread idea Clowns.

Rox

 

[Bigmac2510]

Yep good thread
And to answer you...... Without hesitation!!! or remorse!!

 

[MsTexas]

If the 100 were family, friends and people that I care about ...

Yes, with no looking back.

Otherwise, I'd seriously have to think about it, with the answer probably being no.

 

[passionategirl]

Yes.......I think I would, but would probably find it to hard to live the fact afterwards

 

[IhateClowns]

4 people answering is 4 more then I thought would. I would do it juwst like most everyone else here, but it would be difficult to live down. Especially if it is someone innocent of anything. Would be tugh to be the final judgement of someone else.

 

[RyanBlack]

Posting the question as is, without adding the details of who those saved might be etc. . .I would answer no, a completly unqualified no.

The justification and rationalization for taking a life to save another--whether one or 100 is indefensable.

On the surface, it might seem to be an easy answer, however how many of those who answer yes have ever taken a life. The justification of "saving other lives" has been used for nearly every genocide, every heinous crime ever comitted on a large scale. The preservation of a culture, way of life and the future lives of 'our children and our race' was Hitlers justification for the holocaust.

The position of arbitrary judge of life and death is far too complex to leave in the hands of human beings which can only barely adhere to the threads of a moral code.

In the moment, would I kill to protect my child? OF COURSE! However, I am not fit to be a parent to my child if I would commit mass murder--even if I justified it to be to his benefit.

The simplicity of the question belies the complexity of the answer--personally I am willing to give the right to decide death for others only to one capable of giving life as well. Show me the person who can create life from nothing (this is not procreation) and I will accept that person as capable of choosing when others die.

 

[newbiebabe]

Posting the question as is, without adding the details of who those saved might be etc. . .I would answer no, a completly unqualified no.
.

Yes, have to say I agree with Ryan on this one... there were no qualifiers given so to answer the question as asked, I would have to say "no". Throw in qualifiers and then there would be more to think about and peruse upon.

 

[Georgia Girl]

Yes, I could and would.

Looking at the question in its simplest form, one person is about to do whatever that will harm many if he/she is not stopped. Looking at the weight of how it would effect my soul, if I had the capacity but did nothing and let many be harmed it would effect me more than if I harmed one to save many.

 

[horny247]

I'd say no. I don't think I could really do it. Unless it was someone who was trying to kill those 100 people.

 

[RyanBlack]

perception of the question as preventative murder or defense is interesting

 

[janeyl]

Posting the question as is, without adding the details of who those saved might be etc. . .I would answer no, a completly unqualified no.

The justification and rationalization for taking a life to save another--whether one or 100 is indefensable.

On the surface, it might seem to be an easy answer, however how many of those who answer yes have ever taken a life. The justification of "saving other lives" has been used for nearly every genocide, every heinous crime ever comitted on a large scale. The preservation of a culture, way of life and the future lives of 'our children and our race' was Hitlers justification for the holocaust.

The position of arbitrary judge of life and death is far too complex to leave in the hands of human beings which can only barely adhere to the threads of a moral code.

In the moment, would I kill to protect my child? OF COURSE! However, I am not fit to be a parent to my child if I would commit mass murder--even if I justified it to be to his benefit.

The simplicity of the question belies the complexity of the answer--personally I am willing to give the right to decide death for others only to one capable of giving life as well. Show me the person who can create life from nothing (this is not procreation) and I will accept that person as capable of choosing when others die.

I love this Ryan...

 

[IhateClowns]

Yes, have to say I agree with Ryan on this one... there were no qualifiers given so to answer the question as asked, I would have to say "no". Throw in qualifiers and then there would be more to think about and peruse upon.

True but not throwing in qualifiers leads to much better answers and discussions I do love the answers that are being given though My hopes were to get a variety of different answers for different reasons and so far it seems to be working out.

 

[newbiebabe]

True but not throwing in qualifiers leads to much better answers and discussions I do love the answers that are being given though My hopes were to get a variety of different answers for different reasons and so far it seems to be working out.

Oh I totally agree with you....what is interesting is to know that everyone looks at the question via their own set of glasses, so to speak. This leads to their own qualifiers being brought into the question, whether conciously or not. Kind of like a writing assignment I had once where we were shown a picture of a scene and then had to write the next....we all saw something different happening from the same pic. Very interesting study of people I think.

 

[LustfulOne50]

If you were put in a position to kill one person in order to save the lives of one hundred other people, could you kill?

Yes..without blinking an eye...This question put to me a well beaten up Special Forces type...his reasoning was in a fire fight you do not want someone turn cold on you and run the other way firing back...since the positions would be exposed to him....so as soon as he ( wouldn't be a she in boonies or forward position in Vietnam) got up to run you order him to stop and if he doesn't shoot to kill for he is more dangerous the the enemy....yes it's cold but it is real.

 

[wv_spice_78]

If you could save a 100 people by taking one person out, why wouldnt you? Why should a multitude of people die so that one person can live?

 

[NattyBumppo]

The justification and rationalization for taking a life to save another--whether one or 100 is indefensable.

I disagree as this is an oversimplification as well.

Let's take an extreme example: I see some whackaloon with a gun spraying people in a crowded space. Are you suggesting that I don't have the right -- nay, duty -- to take that person out if it's the only way I have of stopping him?

This leads to my agreement with your perspective that context helps clarify the issue.

If you could save a 100 people by taking one person out, why wouldnt you? Why should a multitude of people die so that one person can live?

Again, as RB has pointed out, the context is important.

 

[xTinyDancerx]

Yes, especially if my baby girl or any of my other family members were in that hundred.

 

[LustfulOne50]

Posting the question as is, without adding the details of who those saved might be etc. . .I would answer no, a completly unqualified no.

The justification and rationalization for taking a life to save another--whether one or 100 is indefensable.

On the surface, it might seem to be an easy answer, however how many of those who answer yes have ever taken a life. The justification of "saving other lives" has been used for nearly every genocide, every heinous crime ever comitted on a large scale. The preservation of a culture, way of life and the future lives of 'our children and our race' was Hitlers justification for the holocaust.

The position of arbitrary judge of life and death is far too complex to leave in the hands of human beings which can only barely adhere to the threads of a moral code.

In the moment, would I kill to protect my child? OF COURSE! However, I am not fit to be a parent to my child if I would commit mass murder--even if I justified it to be to his benefit.

The simplicity of the question belies the complexity of the answer--personally I am willing to give the right to decide death for others only to one capable of giving life as well. Show me the person who can create life from nothing (this is not procreation) and I will accept that person as capable of choosing when others die.

No doubt you have not tasted combat or a fire fight situations...sorry we can weep tears of joy seeing our military bothers and sister march in the home town parade and not come home in a box do to some out of control soldier who goes in those termed words "Postal"( Not a military term).

 

[lakesailer_mi]

If you were put in a position to kill one person in order to save the lives of one hundred other people, could you kill?

If you could save a 100 people by taking one person out, why wouldnt you? Why should a multitude of people die so that one person can live?

This is an interesting discussion. I note Ryan's very thoughtful and interesting answer above. I also note that different people have interpreted the basic question differently.

I like spice's comment (abvoe) because it really highlights the moral conundrum here: wouldn't it depend on the person? A number above have suggested that that would kill to protect their children, so if that one person was your child, would you feel differently?
Suppose, instead of killing one (faceless/nameless) person to save a hundred, you had to kill someone you knew, your child? your lover? to save those hundred...would the calculus be so easy?
Or suppose that one person were Martin Luther King or Ghandi?
We allways suppose that if we save 100 people by killing one, we are doing good. Consider that many hundreds died following both Ghandi and King (if you've ever seen the moving Ghandi, remember the scene of the peacefull protest where the soldiers beat and killed many). Would you kill them then? Those people who followed them and died would be saved?
I would suspect too, that if, instead of killing Hitler, we were to have killed Churchill and Roosevelt, we might have saved many thousands of lives of Americans and Brits as both these countries might then have stayed out of the war, or ended it early with a negotiated peace (Hitler thought England would negotiate eventually, Churchill was responsible for preventing that).

I think measuring one life against others is the most difficult measure we have. We certainly can do it when it's people we know. When we imagine the person we are killing to be evil/bad/threatening. Indeed, this is the psychology used in many cases (look at any war propoganda).

 

[NattyBumppo]

No doubt you have not tasted combat or a fire fight situations...sorry we can weep tears of joy seeing our military bothers and sister march in the home town parade and not come home in a box do to some out of control soldier who goes in those termed words "Postal"( Not a military term).

Technically, the situation where one soldier/Marine jumps on a live grenade to save the lives of his comrades would cause RB problems, because in all likelihood, that sacrifice is the taking of one life to spare those of the men around him, and therefore at odds with RB's position.

 

[lakesailer_mi]

Technically, the situation where one soldier/Marine jumps on a live grenade to save the lives of his comrades would cause RB problems, because in all likelihood, that sacrifice is the taking of one life to spare those of the men around him, and therefore at odds with RB's position.

I can't speak for Ryan, but I do think there is a difference between the taking of a life and the giving of a life.
Just as there is a difference between me giving someone money willingly versus them taking it at the point of a knife or gun.

 

[NattyBumppo]

I can't speak for Ryan, but I do think there is a difference between the taking of a life and the giving of a life.
Just as there is a difference between me giving someone money willingly versus them taking it at the point of a knife or gun.

Either way, a life is ending, and it's being ended knowingly. The original question did not specify the taking of another's life, merely the taking of one life. RB's position, if I understood it correctly, was that the taking of even one life was indefensible. If I knowingly throw myself on a live grenade, the odds that I will survive it are very small (although it has happened). It is done with the intention of sacrificing -- taking -- my life to save the life of my fellow soldiers.

 

[lakesailer_mi]

Either way, a life is ending, and it's being ended knowingly. The original question did not specify the taking of another's life, merely the taking of one life. RB's position, if I understood it correctly, was that the taking of even one life was indefensible. If I knowingly throw myself on a live grenade, the odds that I will survive it are very small (although it has happened). It is done with the intention of sacrificing -- taking -- my life to save the life of my fellow soldiers.

I'm not sure that I agree with Ryan that it's never justified, but I also think that a simple 1 life < 100 lives is not really a calculation any of can or should make easily.

 

[NattyBumppo]

I'm not sure that I agree with Ryan that it's never justified, but I also think that a simple 1 life < 100 lives is not really a calculation any of can or should make easily.

I agree. If it were easy it wouldn't be a conundrum.